Ex Parte JohnsonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 2, 201312241258 (P.T.A.B. May. 2, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte KATHERINE JOHNSON ____________________ Appeal 2011-003599 Application 12/241,258 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: WILLIAM V. SAINDON, JILL D. HILL, and JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-003599 Application 12/241,258 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Turtzo (US 6,254,554 B1; iss. Jul. 3, 2001) and Miller (US 4,991,573; iss. Feb. 12, 1991).1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 8 are independent. Claim 1 is the only rejected independent claim and is reproduced below: 1. A crevice collar comprising: a strip of cushion material, having a length, first and second ends, a generally flat lower surface, and a ridged upper surface, with a pair of oppositely disposed sidewalls each extending from the flat lower surface inwardly and upwardly to said ridged upper surface; a cloth like stockinette covering surrounding the entire strip of cushion material; and a roll up stretch band attached to at least one of said first and second ends. OPINION The Examiner finds that Turtzo teaches each of the features found in claim 1 including the ridged upper surface and sidewalls extending upwardly to the ridged upper surface, but fails to teach that the sidewalls extend inwardly to the ridged upper surface. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner finds that Miller teaches a compression wrap including a covered foam having an upper ridged surface with sidewalls extending upwardly and inwardly to the 1 The rejection of claim 8 has been withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 5. Appeal 2011-003599 Application 12/241,258 3 ridged upper surface and reasons that it would have been obvious to include a cushion having inwardly extending sidewalls in Turtzo to enhance and accommodate accurate body contour when applying the compression device to a patient. Ans. 4-5. Appellant argues that Turtzo has nothing to do with accommodating crevices formed by swollen skin and that using Turtzo’s sleeve for Appellant’s purpose would defeat Appellant’s objective. App. Br. 5. Appellant further argues that Miller does not teach “upwardly and inwardly cushion material sidewalls terminating in a ridge that fits within a crevice.” Id.; Reply Br. 2. Appellant explains that Miller has nothing to do with the treatment of Lymphedema and that Figure 3 of Miller depicts a belt having pads 28 with flat tops that would not fit within formed crevices caused by Lymphedema. App. Br. 5. Appellant contends that claim 1 “require[s] with specificity the configuration of the cushion strip so that it fits within the crevice of the skin folds which is an important feature of the invention” (App. Br. 6) and that neither Turtzo nor Miller addresses Appellant’s problem of accommodating skin crevices or folds during compression treatment of Lymphedema (Reply Br. 3). Appellant’s arguments are not convincing because the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 is not defined in a manner that requires “accommodating crevices formed by swollen skin,” “a ridge that fits within a crevice,” or any form of treatment of Lymphedema. Appellant’s contention that claim 1 “require[s] with specificity” any of these features is simply incorrect. Appellant further contends that “[t]here… is no compression bandage” disclosed by the references. App. Br. 5. Assuming Appellant is Appeal 2011-003599 Application 12/241,258 4 referring to the claimed “stretch band,” the Examiner finds that Turtzo teaches a stretch band 24. Ans. 3. Appellant offers no explanation as to why this finding is incorrect. Thus, we are not apprised of Examiner error. For the reasons set forth above, Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of Examiner error and we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and are not argued separately. See App. Br. 3-7. Therefore, claims 2-7 fall with claim 1. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation